Salmon: Imports

Angus MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what steps his Department is taking to maintain the minimum import price for farmed salmon.

Gareth Thomas: The European Commission is currently conducting an interim review of the anti-dumping measures, in the form of a minimum import price, against imports of farmed salmon from Norway. This Department has contributed fully to this review, working closely with the Scottish Executive, the Irish Government and the EU Salmon Producers Group. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, John Hutton, has spoken on a number of occasions in support of the measures with Peter Mandelson, the European Trade Commissioner, and Alex Salmond, Scottish First Minister. The outcome of the review is expected during May.

Radioactive Wastes: Waste Management

Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria were used to determine the membership of  (a) the Criteria Proposals Group and  (b) the Criteria Review Panel in respect of geological screening criteria for radioactive waste disposal sites developed by his Department.

Phil Woolas: The two groups were recruited by the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme sponsor bodies (DEFRA, Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Welsh Assembly Government and Northern Ireland) following discussion with, and nominations by, the learned societies—the Royal Society, the Geological Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering.
	DEFRA's Chief Scientific Advisor was also involved and the scientific disciplines sought were geology, hydrogeology and rock mechanics. Membership represented a high calibre mix of academic and industrial practitioners.
	A Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) member participated in the Criteria Proposal Group's work and a technical specialist from the Environment Agency also served on Criteria Review Panel.
	Further information on the Groups' work is available on DEFRA's website.

Rights of Way

Andrew Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Minister authorised the establishment of the Discovering Lost Ways project; and if he will instigate an investigation into the reasons for the project not achieving its objectives.

Jonathan R Shaw: The Countryside Agency established the Discovering Lost Ways (DLW) Project following publication of the Rural White Paper Implementation Plan of March 2001, using funds provided by DEFRA under the authority of the then Environment Minister the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton.
	Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provided for the extinguishment, in 2026, of public rights of way that existed prior to 1949, unless recorded by 2026 on the definitive map and statement maintained by the highway authority. The DLW project trialled the use of systematic data collection techniques to fulfil the Government's aim as set out in the 2000 Rural White Paper, of recording of such rights before 2026.
	Natural England, the successor body to the Countryside Agency, has now reviewed the DLW Project. Its investigations found that even this systematic research approach could not remove the requirement for further detailed research into cases by the highway authority, and for a public inquiry to be held whenever the recording of such a right was opposed. As a result it considers there is no prospect of processing of the evidence collected by the 2026 cut-off date and accordingly Natural England is terminating the research contract. I do not consider any further investigation to be necessary.
	Natural England is preparing to convene a Stakeholder Working Group to consider the scope for an agreed package of the reforms in this area. The Government have endorsed this as an appropriate way forward, and will consider any recommendations from the Group in due course, although this does not mean that the Government are, at this stage, committing to further legislative reform. We have written to stakeholders indicating that we will not bring section 53 into effect at least until we know the outcome of this Group's work.

Disability Living Allowance: Appeals

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average length of time for an appeal against refusal of disability living allowance to be determined was in the latest period for which figures are available; what is the longest time a person has been waiting for an appeal to be heard; how many people have been waiting  (a) three,  (b) six or  (c) more than six months for a hearing; and if he will make a statement.

Bridget Prentice: I have been asked to reply.
	Information is compiled for appeals against refusal for disability living allowance (DLA) and attendance allowance (AA) together. To separate the two would incur disproportionate cost and therefore the answer has been provided for both DLA and AA.
	The table provides an indication of waiting times. These figures may be slightly overstated due to data reconciliation across two different databases.
	We are unable to provide the longest waiting time for an appellant in a DLA case as the historical data is not robust due to inconsistencies across the aforementioned two databases.
	
		
			  Average length of time and waiting times for an appeal against refusal for disability living allowance and attendance allowance, 2007-08 
			   Number  Percentage 
			 Average length of time for an appeal for disability living allowance and attendance allowance 9.5 weeks 
			
			  Number of people waiting:   
			  (a) up to three months 47,875 81 
			  (b) three to six months 10,700 18 
			  (c) more than six months 855 1 
			  Source: The Tribunals Service

Olympic Games 2012: Education

Harry Cohen: To ask the Minister for the Olympics what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families on ensuring that the 2012 Olympic Games delivers a lasting educational legacy.

Tessa Jowell: I have met with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families on a number of occasions to discuss the educational legacy, including the ongoing review of potential options for securing an educational legacy at the site which is currently being led by an independent advisor.

Digital Switchover Help Scheme

Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 
	(1)  what estimate he has made of the cost of adding the return path function to the set-top box as part of the digital switchover help scheme;
	(2)  what assessment he has made of the proposal that the next wave of the digital switchover help scheme procurement process should include an invitation to market test return path capability.

Andy Burnham: The Emerging Technologies Group (ETC) is responsible for keeping the core receiver requirements for the digital switchover help scheme (DSHS) under review. In recent weeks the ETC has been considering the viability of including return path capability in the DSHS set-top-box. There are however, a number of concerns about this vision, the main one being that there is not an open standard for return paths. The ETC proposes therefore to establish a dialogue with manufactures to explore the scope for the development of an open standard before taking a view on the most practical and economic way forward.

Speed Limits: Cameras

Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of commercially available speed camera detection systems.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Department has not assessed the effectiveness of commercially available speed camera detection systems. However, the Road Safety Act 2006 gives the Secretary of State the power to prohibit by regulations a vehicle being fitted with, or a person using a vehicle carrying speed assessment equipment detection devices. The Government have always made clear that it do not intend to prohibit the use of purely GPS-based devices which identify the location of cameras through publicly available information. It does however wish to prevent the carriage and use of devices which detect or interfere with the operation of speed measuring equipment through other means. The actual devices to be covered by the ban will be the subject of full public consultation before the associated secondary legislation is laid before Parliament.

Dental Services

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have been issued with negative schedule letters as a result of negative schedule audits in  (a) 2007-08 and  (b) 2006-07; how much dentists were required to make consequential payments to the NHS Business Services Authority's Dental Practice Division in each year; and if he will make a statement.

Ann Keen: Only dental providers hold contracts with the national health service. Many dentists are not contract holders themselves but work under contract to lead providers. Information on the number of dental providers who have individually received a letter in 2006-07 and 2007-08 is available but could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Medical Records: Databases

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how data is gathered by primary care trusts for inclusion on the National Health Application Infrastructure Service (Exeter) system.

Ben Bradshaw: Primary care trusts (PCTs) are legally required to maintain a register of patients registered with a general practitioner's (GP's) practice according to the patient's registered address. This legal requirement for a register is met by the National Health Application Infrastructure Service (NHAIS) patient database.
	Most GP practices have a computer system that is linked to local NHAIS systems. Each new patient registration, and all patient demographic changes, are recorded by practice staff, and these changes are notified electronically to the relevant local NHAIS system in order to maintain the patient registers. Non-computerised practices support the maintenance of the NHAIS systems by the provision of paper-based forms.
	NHAIS systems also receive data about patient deaths, patients moving permanently to reside overseas, people moving into the armed services, and removals from the NHS Central Register which is operated by the Information Centre for health and social care.

Medicine: Research

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been provided for research into  (a) heart disease,  (b) stroke and  (c) dementia in each of the last five years; and what percentage of the medical and health research budget this represented in each year.

Dawn Primarolo: The available information is shown in the following table.
	
		
			  £ million 
			   Department  Medical Research Council (MRC) 
			   Coronary heart disease  Dementia  Cardiovascular research  Dementia  Stroke 
			 2001-02 n/a 2.9 n/a 6.6 3.9 
			 2002-03 56.2 1.6 n/a 6.6 4.9 
			 2003-04 54.4 1.1 11.1 7.4 4.8 
			 2004-05 60.6 19 9.7 6.2 3.1 
			 2005-06 60.1 18.3 15.6 6 4.7 
			 n/a = not available 
		
	
	Over the last 10 years, the main part of the Department's research and development budget has been allocated to and managed by national health service organisations. These organisations have accounted for their use of the allocations received from the Department in an annual research and development report, From 2002-03, the reports have identified total, aggregated expenditure on a number of priority areas including coronary heart disease and, from 2004-05, dementia; but not stroke.
	The Departmental figures for dementia for the years from 2001-02 to 2003-04 relate only to national research programme expenditure.
	The MRC is one of the main agencies through which the Government supports biomedical research. The MRC is an independent body funded by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
	In the absence of a complete set of expenditure data, a comparison with total research and development budgets has not been made.

Departmental Manpower

Mark Hoban: To ask the Prime Minister how many people are employed by  (a) the Press Office,  (b) the Policy Unit,  (c) the Speech Writing Unit,  (d) the Research and Information Unit,  (e) the Private Office,  (f) the Strategic Communications Unit and  (g) the Political Office in No. 10 Downing Street.

Gordon Brown: The total number of staff on the No. 10 payroll as at 1 April 2008 is set out in the following table.
	
		
			   Number at 1 April 2008 
			 Prime Minister's Office 189 
			  Of which:  
			 Private Office (1)13 
			 No. 10 Policy Unit 15 
			 Press Officers (2)7 
			 Strategic Communications Unit (3)8 
			 Research and Information 5 
			 (1) This figure includes those responsible for co-ordinating speech writing. (2) This figure includes on secondee from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (3) This includes one unpaid adviser. 
		
	
	The staffing and associated costs for my Political Office are met by the Labour party. As has been the case under successive Administrations, marginal costs associated with the Political Office are met from within the overall budget for 10 Downing street.

Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal Implementation Project

Eric Pickles: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance the Office for Government Commerce provided to, and what contact it has had with  (a) the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency,  (b) the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel and  (c) the Valuation and Lands Agency in relation to the gateway review for the Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal Implementation Project.

Angela Eagle: The Office of Government Commerce has not provided any assistance to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency or the Valuation and Lands Agency. Since 2006, however, the Office of Government Commerce has arranged several OGC Gateway™ reviews for the Department of Finance and Personnel on a number of their projects.

Excise Duties: Motorcycles

Joan Walley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors are considered when determining the level of road tax applicable to 125cc motorbikes; and if he will make a statement.

Angela Eagle: Vehicle Excise Duty for motorbikes is banded under four engine capacity based rates with the lowest rate of £15 applying to bikes with engines not over 150cc capacity.
	In taking taxation decisions as part of the Budget process the Government considers a range of factors including relevant environmental, social and economic factors into consideration.

Welfare Tax Credits

Danny Alexander: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  how many complaints about tax credits HM Revenue and Customs received from  (a) hon. Members and  (b) members of the public by (i) telephone, (ii) letter and (iii) e-mail in each month since April 2003;
	(2)  how many  (a) letters,  (b) e-mails and  (c) telephone calls on tax credits have been received by (i) his Department, (ii) HM Revenue and Customs and (iii) the Tax Credit Office from (A) hon. Members and (B) members of the public in each quarter since April 2003.

Jane Kennedy: Overall, the Tax Credit Office (TCO) post room handles around 3.5 to 4 million items of post each year. Quarterly information for the years for which the information is available is shown in the following table.
	
		
			  Items of post received in Tax Credit Office 
			  Quarter ending  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07  2007-08 
			 June 1,119,000 917,500 998,000 807,500 
			 September 1,210,500 1,069,000 1,173,500 1,211,000 
			 December 948,500 936,000 984,500 793,000 
			 March 924,500 908,000 898,000 (1)637,500 
			 (1) Final quarter to 18 March 2008. 
		
	
	Information separately identifying the number of items of post received from hon. Members and members of the public is not available.
	HMRC does not separately record if complaints are made by letter, in a phone call or by way of an e-mail. For details of the number of people who sent complaints to TCO up to 31 December 2007, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 18 February 2008,  Official Report, columns 374-75W.
	
		
			  2008  Number of complainants (approximate) 
			 January 3,250 
			 February 3,200 
		
	
	Information about the number of complaints sent by right hon. Members and hon. Members in each quarter is shown in the following table.
	
		
			  MP complaints addressed to Tax Credit Office (approximate) 
			  Quarter ending  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07  2007-08 
			 June 800 1,900 1,900 1,650 
			 September 1,250 2,550 2,100 1,500 
			 December 2,250 2,700 2,150 1,650 
			 March 2,900 2,500 2,000 (1)850 
			 (1) Final quarter only to 29 February 2008. 
		
	
	For the number of calls answered each month by the TCO MP hotline up to and including May 2007, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the then Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo) gave the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 25 June 2007,  Official Report, column 419W. The information requested for 2006-07 and 2007-08 is provided in the following table.
	
		
			   Received  Handled  Abandoned 
			 2006-07 17,776 17,360 416 
			 2007-08(1) 12,654 12,452 202 
			 (1) To end of February 2008. 
		
	
	New telephony equipment was introduced to the hon. Members' hotline in October 2005 so the first full year in which information about the number of calls that were abandoned before being answered by an adviser is 2006-07.
	With regard to the number of calls received on the Tax Credits helpline, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today (194486), which shows that monthly figures, to April 2007, have previously been provided. The following table shows this information for those quarters where the full information has not previously been provided.
	
		
			  Quarter ending  Calls received (Thousand) 
			 June 2007 7,080 
			 September 2007 7,303 
			 December 2007 4,305 
		
	
	TCO does not record separately the number of calls it receives from its customers.
	The other information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.
	HM Treasury does not routinely record statistical information on the number of letters, calls or e-mails it receives about tax credits.

Welfare Tax Credits: Telephone Services

Danny Alexander: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls were  (a) received,  (b) handled and  (c) unanswered by (i) the claimants' and (ii) hon. Members' tax credit hotline in each year since 2003.

Jane Kennedy: With regard to (i) the tax credits helpline, I would refer the hon. Member to previous answers provided by my right hon. Friend the then Paymaster General:
	12 September 2005,  Official Report, column 2407W,
	14 March 2006,  Official Report, column 2137W,
	5 June 2006,  Official Report, column 188W,
	20 June 2006,  Official Report, column 187W,
	25 June 2007, Official Report, columns 418W and 419W,
	31 January 2008,  Official Report, column 682W,
	where elements of the requested information have been provided giving details of calls received, handled, busy/engaged and abandoned for each year to 31 March 2007. The full year figures to 31 March 2008 are not yet available.
	On (ii) calls to the hon. Members' hotline, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today (194467 and 194469).

Departmental Written Questions

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many days it took on average to answer written parliamentary questions tabled by each hon. Member for answer by him in the last six months.

Jack Straw: The information requested is in the following tables. It includes questions tabled for answer between 6 November 2007 and 4 April 2008.
	
		
			  Ordinary written questions 
			  MP  Total number of questions tabled  Average time in sitting days for answer 
			 Diane Abbott 2 4.5 
			 Adam Afriyie 4 4.0 
			 Peter Ainsworth 1 5.0 
			 Danny Alexander 4 4.25 
			 David Amess 27 4.63 
			 David Anderson 3 5.40 
			 Janet Anderson 1 3.0 
			 Norman Baker 9 7.67 
			 Tony Baldry 2 4.5 
			 Gordon Banks 1 4.0 
			 Hugh Bayley 4 4.75 
			 Alan Beith 1 24.0 
			 Henry Bellingham 72 4.64 
			 Roger Berry 1 5.0 
			 Peter Bone 1 4.0 
			 Tom Brake 9 5.78 
			 Julian Brazier 1 4.0 
			 James Brokenshire 18 4.44 
			 Malcolm Bruce 2 7.0 
			 Simon Burns 2 2.5 
			 David Burrowes 13 4.92 
			 Paul Burstow 2 7.0 
			 Lorely Burt 1 4.0 
			 Vincent Cable 3 23.33 
			 Ronnie Campbell 7 3.14 
			 Alistair Carmichael 1 6.0 
			 James Clappison 8 3.88 
			 Nick Clegg 1 4.0 
			 Harry Cohen 3 3.33 
			 Jim Cousins 4 9.25 
			 Mary Creagh 1 5.0 
			 John Cummings 4 5.25 
			 Claire Curtis-Thomas 1 4.0 
			 Dai Davies 2 5.0 
			 David Davies 8 4.25 
			 Philip Davies 33 3.82 
			 David Davis 22 (1)18.18 
			 Andrew Dismore 1 4.0 
			 Jonathan Djanogly 3 7.0 
			 Jim Dowd 1 16.0 
			 David Drew 21 7.0 
			 Alan Duncan 1 4.0 
			 Philip Dunne 7 3.29 
			 Jeff Ennis 2 5.0 
			 Bill Etherington 1 8.0 
			 Nigel Evans 1 13.0 
			 David Evennett 4 6.0 
			 Tim Farron 1 4.0 
			 Lynne Featherstone 8 5.13 
			 Frank Field 2 4.0 
			 Don Foster 2 4.0 
			 Liam Fox 2 4.5 
			 Roger Gale 2 6.0 
			 Edward Garnier 67 5.25 
			 David Gauke 5 5.8 
			 Neil Gerrard 11 7.27 
			 Cheryl Gillan 24 5.08 
			 Linda Gilroy 1 2.0 
			 Julia Goldsworthy 3 19.0 
			 Paul Goodman 2 4.5 
			 James Gray 8 6.13 
			 Damian Green 7 6.14 
			 Dominic Grieve 9 4.33 
			 Nia Griffith 9 3.78 
			 John Gummer 9 6.89 
			 Andrew Gwynne 2 4.5 
			 William Hague 2 3.0 
			 Fabian Hamilton 2 3.5 
			 Philip Hammond 16 12.44 
			 Mike Hancock 8 3.5 
			 Greg Hands 2 4.5 
			 Mark Harper 4 5.25 
			 John Hayes 17 9.29 
			 David Heath 19 7.63 
			 John Hemming 3 3.33 
			 Stephen Hepburn 1 5.0 
			 Nick Herbert 41 4.93 
			 Lady Hermon 18 5.89 
			 Mark Hoban 65 7.4 
			 Philip Hollobone 2 5.0 
			 Kelvin Hopkins 1 1.0 
			 Martin Horwood 1 3.0 
			 Stewart Hosie 1 5.0 
			 David Howarth 1 1.0 
			 Lindsay Hoyle 6 5.5 
			 Chris Huhne 9 7.56 
			 Joan Humble 1 4.0 
			 Mark Hunter 1 3.0 
			 Nick Hurd 25 2.96 
			 Adam Ingram 1 4.0 
			 Stewart Jackson 7 4.29 
			 Sian James 1 3.0 
			 Brian Jenkins 11 6.73 
			 Boris Johnson 9 4.0 
			 David Jones 1 8.0 
			 Kevan Jones 1 4.0 
			 Lynne Jones 7 4.0 
			 Sir Gerald Kaufman 4 4.75 
			 Daniel Kawczynski 1 13.0 
			 Sally Keeble 3 5.0 
			 Fraser Kemp 5 5.8 
			 Robert Key 1 2.0 
			 David Kidney 14 4.14 
			 Susan Kramer 4 6.0 
			 Ashok Kumar 13 6.0 
			 Norman Lamb 2 4.0 
			 Mark Lancaster 3 4.0 
			 Andrew Lansley 2 6.5 
			 David Laws 6 (1)12.66 
			 Oliver Letwin 1 19.0 
			 Tom Levitt 2 5.0 
			 Ian Liddell-Grainger 1 6.0 
			 Elfyn Llwyd 28 4.46 
			 Tim Loughton 4 2.25 
			 Ian Lucas 2 5.0 
			 Denis MacShane 3 4.67 
			 Fiona MacTaggart 5 3.8 
			 Anne Main 6 4.17 
			 Humfrey Malins 29 4.24 
			 John Mann 3 5.0 
			 Francis Maude 20 6.05 
			 Theresa May 11 8.55 
			 John McDonnell 33 5.91 
			 Anne McIntosh 2 6.0 
			 Shona McIsaac 1 1.0 
			 Alan Meale 1 4.0 
			 Patrick Mercer 7 4.29 
			 Anne Milton 6 5.67 
			 Austin Mitchell 8 5.75 
			 Madeleine Moon 2 5.0 
			 Michael Moore 1 7.0 
			 Margaret Moran 14 4.79 
			 Jessica Morden 1 4.0 
			 Julie Morgan 2 5.5 
			 Elliot Morley 1 2.0 
			 Greg Mulholland 3 5.67 
			 Chris Mullin 2 3.5 
			 Denis Murphy 7 6.0 
			 Andrew Murrison 8 5.0 
			 Robert Neill 20 4.8 
			 Brooks Newmark 3 4.0 
			 Stephen O'Brien 2 6.5 
			 George Osborne 3 3.67 
			 James Paice 4 3.75 
			 Owen Paterson 5 4.0 
			 Mike Penning 2 7.5 
			 Eric Pickles 31 2.61 
			 Greg Pope 2 4.0 
			 Gordon Prentice 4 5.0 
			 Adam Price 2 4.0 
			 John Randall 1 5.0 
			 John Redwood 1 4.0 
			 Jamie Reed 1 1.0 
			 Linda Riordan 1 4.0 
			 Angus Robertson 1 6.0 
			 Iris Robinson 1 5.0 
			 Dan Rogerson 9 5.0 
			 Andrew Rosindell 29 3.55 
			 David Ruffley 22 6.23 
			 Bob Russell 5 4.0 
			 Andrew Selous 2 4.0 
			 Virenda Sharma 3 4.67 
			 Barry Sheerman 1 3.0 
			 Richard Shepherd 3 5.0 
			 David Simpson 11 7.45 
			 Keith Simpson 1 5.0 
			 Geraldine Smith 1 5.0 
			 Peter Soulsby 1 5.0 
			 John Spellar 8 6.13 
			 Michael Spicer 1 3.0 
			 Bob Spink 14 10.64 
			 Richard Spring 5 5.2 
			 Anthony Steen 1 32.0 
			 Howard Stoate 3 4.0 
			 Andrew Stunell 1 9.0 
			 Jo Swinson 2 3.0 
			 Hugo Swire 3 4.67 
			 Dari Taylor 2 7.0 
			 David Taylor 2 8.5 
			 Matthew Taylor 1 5.0 
			 Sarah Tether 8 6.5 
			 Mark Todd 5 4.6 
			 Jon Trickett 3 3.0 
			 Andrew Tyrie 8 4.0 
			 Ed Vaizey 1 5.0 
			 Shailesh Vara 7 7.43 
			 Keith Vaz 7 6.86 
			 Theresa Villiers 6 6.5 
			 Rudi Vis 33 5.61 
			 Charles Walker 5 6.6 
			 Michael Weir 6 8.83 
			 Bill Wiggin 2 10.0 
			 Roger Williams 4 (1)8.75 
			 Phil Willis 1 8.0 
			 Jenny Willott 74 (1)5.19 
			 David Wilshire 2 4.0 
			 Pete Wishart 2 5.5 
			 Mike Wood 10 4.5 
			 David Wright 1 5.0 
			 Tony Wright 1 5.0 
			 Richard Younger-Ross 2 4.0 
			 Total 1,468 5.60 
		
	
	
		
			  Ordinary written questions 
			  MP  Total number of questions tabled  Average time in sitting days for answer 
			 Danny Alexander 1 4.0 
			 Graham Allen 1 1.0 
			 James Arbuthnot 3 2.67 
			 Gordon Banks 5 1.0 
			 Celia Barlow 1 1.0 
			 John Baron 6 1.0 
			 Hugh Bayley 1 1.0 
			 Tim Boswell 1 1.0 
			 James Brokenshire 4 1.0 
			 Annette Brooke 2 1.0 
			 Jeremy Browne 2 1.0 
			 Angela Browning 4 1.75 
			 Colin Burgon 4 1.0 
			 Simon Burns 12 2.0 
			 David Burrowes 20 1.1 
			 Paul Burstow 1 3.0 
			 Dawn Butler 1 1.0 
			 Stephen Byers 2 2.0 
			 Gregory Campbell 1 1.0 
			 Jeremy Corbyn 2 1.0 
			 Patrick Cormack 1 2.0 
			 Jim Cousins 1 2.0 
			 Stephen Crabb 3 1.0 
			 Jim Cunningham 15 1.13 
			 David Davies 1 1.0 
			 David Davis 5 5.8 
			 Jim Devine 1 1.0 
			 Jonathan Djanogly 8 1.0 
			 Iain Duncan-Smith 1 4.0 
			 Louise Ellman 4 2.0 
			 Tobias Ellwood 1 1.0 
			 Jeff Ennis 1 1.0 
			 Nigel Evans 25 3.28 
			 Tim Farron 1 1.0 
			 Lynne Featherstone 1 1.0 
			 Frank Field 4 3.0 
			 Don Foster 1 7.0 
			 Christopher Fraser 1 1.0 
			 Roger Gale 3 1.33 
			 Edward Garnier 25 3.88 
			 Andrew George 5 1.0 
			 Neil Gerrard 5 1.4 
			 Cheryl Gillan 15 1.0 
			 Paul Goodman 1 3.0 
			 Robert Goodwill 2 3.5 
			 Justine Greening 1 1.0 
			 Andrew Gwynne 1 1.0 
			 Stephen Hammond 1 1.0 
			 Mike Hancock 1 1.0 
			 Mark Harper 2 1.0 
			 Evan Harris 1 1.0 
			 John Hayes 1 14.0 
			 David Heath 7 4.71 
			 John Hemming 1 1.0 
			 Nick Herbert 55 2.53 
			 Philip Hollobone 3 1.0 
			 Martin Horwood 1 1.0 
			 David Howarth 3 1.0 
			 Chris Huhne 9 (1)8.33 
			 Brian Iddon 1 1.0 
			 Adam Ingram 6 1.33 
			 Michael Jack 1 1.0 
			 Stewart Jackson 19 1.05 
			 Helen Jones 4 2.25 
			 Kevan Jones 1 1.0 
			 Eric Joyce 1 1.0 
			 Sally Keeble 2 2.0 
			 David Kidney 2 1.0 
			 Greg Knight 3 1.0 
			 Susan Kramer 3 1.0 
			 Tony Lloyd 1 1.0 
			 Elfyn Llwyd 9 1.33 
			 Tim Loughton 1 6.0 
			 Ian Lucas 1 4.0 
			 Andrew Mackinlay 3 1.0 
			 Angus McNeill 1 3.0 
			 Humfrey Malins 5 1.4 
			 John Mann 1 1.0 
			 Rob Marris 3 1.0 
			 Chris McCafferty 1 1.0 
			 Sarah McCarthy-Fry 1 1.0 
			 John McDonnell 7 1.71 
			 Jim McGovern 1 45.0 
			 Anne McIntosh 1 1.0 
			 Shona McIsaac 1 1.0 
			 Chris Mole 1 1.0 
			 Greg Mulholland 6 2.67 
			 Mark Oaten 4 3.75 
			 Richard Ottaway 1 1.0 
			 Stephen Pound 1 1.0 
			 Adam Price 2 1.0 
			 John Robertson 2 1.0 
			 Dan Rogerson 3 1.67 
			 Paul Rowan 1 1.0 
			 Chris Ruane 3 1.0 
			 Bob Russell 11 1.0 
			 Adrian Sandars 1 1.0 
			 Andrew Selous 3 1.33 
			 Sion Simon 1 1.0 
			 Marsha Singh 1 1.0 
			 Angela C. Smith 1 1.0 
			 Geraldine Smith 2 1.0 
			 Nicholas Soames 1 1.0 
			 Helen Southworth 1 1.0 
			 Michael Spicer 1 2.0 
			 Bob Spink 4 1.0 
			 Anthony Steen 3 1.0 
			 Gary Streeter 2 1.0 
			 Graham Stringer 2 1.0 
			 Desmond Swayne 1 1.0 
			 Jo Swinson 1 1.0 
			 David Taylor 4 9.0 
			 Paddy Tipping 1 1.0 
			 Andrew Turner 2 1.0 
			 Andrew Tyrie 1 14.0 
			 Rudi Vis 1 1.0 
			 Steve Webb 2 1.5 
			 Hywel Williams 5 1.4 
			 Phil Willis 1 1.0 
			 Jenny Willott 4 5.5 
			 David Winnick 1 1.0 
			 Derek Wyatt 4 1.0 
			 Total 459 2.25 
			 (1) Includes PQs unanswered as at 29 April 2008.

Dogs: Animal Welfare

John MacDougall: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prosecutions there were for dog fighting in the last 12 months.

Maria Eagle: The information held by my Department on court proceedings does not contain information about the circumstances behind each case other than the information that may be gleaned from the offence itself. As a result offences involving illegal dog fighting cannot be separately identified from other offences of animal cruelty under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, nor can it be separated from offences of 'animal fighting' offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Prisoners Release

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many early release offenders who have been recalled since June 2007 are still at large; what steps are being taken to apprehend them; and what offences they were convicted of.

David Hanson: The end of custody licence was introduced on 29 June 2007. Eligible prisoners serving between four weeks and four years may be released under licence from prison up to up to 18 days before their automatic release date.
	All prisoners released on ECL are liable to recall if they are reported to have misbehaved during the period of the licence. A decision to recall an offender from ECL lies with the Governors of establishments, and it is the responsibility of the establishments to ensure the police are notified that the prisoner's ECL licence has been revoked and the offender is to be returned to custody.
	Between 29 June 2007 and 29 February 2008, 745 offenders were notified as recalled, following their release on ECL. This equates to 4 per cent. of those released on ECL. As of 21 March 2008, 612 (82 per cent.) of these offenders had been returned to custody, while 133 (18 per cent.) had not yet been returned to custody. The offences for which those 133 offenders were convicted, are listed in the following table:
	
		
			  Offence category  Number 
			 Violent offences against the person 38 
			 Burglary 36 
			 Robbery 4 
			 Theft 51 
			 Fraud 5 
			 Drug 9 
			 Driving 9 
			 Other 52 
		
	
	The police local to the area where the offender was living will be notified of the recall of the offender by the Governor of the releasing establishment. Arrest and return to custody of those offenders is an operational matter for the police.
	Information about end of custody licence releases and recalls is published on a monthly basis on the Ministry of Justice website at
	http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/endofcustodylicence.htm
	The latest report was published on 31 March and refers to February as the reporting month.

Prisoners Release

Peter Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effects on prisoners of being released early.

David Hanson: During the year 2006-07 there were 4,285 offenders subject to Post Release Licence (offenders serving 12 months or more and those under 22 years of age) of these 246 (5.7 per cent.) were recalled following an allegation of a further offence.
	The Home Detention Curfew Scheme (HOC) began in 1999. It is applied to prisoners serving sentences of between three months and under four years who meet the eligibility criteria. It allows prisoners to live outside prison providing they do not breach the rules of their curfew. Approximately 148,000 prisoners have been released on HDC since the scheme began. 85 per cent. complete their curfew successfully. About 4 per cent. are reported to re-offend during the curfew period.
	The End of Custody Licence Scheme (ECL) came into effect on 29 June 2007. Prisoners serving sentences of four weeks or more but less than four years who meet the eligibility criteria are released under licence up to 18 days earlier than they would otherwise be released. Between 29 June 2007 and 31 March 2008 about 23,700 prisoners have been released under the scheme. Of those released NOMS have been notified that about 3 per cent. have been recalled and just 1 per cent. have been notified as allegedly offending during the ECL period.
	All prisoners who are subject to HDC/ECL including those who are not subject to Post Release Licence are liable to recall if they are reported to have misbehaved during the HDC/ECL period.
	During the HDC/ECL period offenders who are subject to Post-Release Licence are required to meet their Offender Manager after release and to have regular contact after that in line with Probation Service National Standards. During the HDC/ECL period prisoners are encouraged to seek employment and training and to engage with relevant community resources. These measures apply only to those who have accommodation to go to.

Gardens

Douglas Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps the Government is considering to end the practice of automatically classifying gardens as brownfield sites; and if she will make a statement.

Iain Wright: Annex B of Planning Policy Statement 3 "Housing" (PPS3) defines brownfield land as that
	"which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure".
	There are no plans to change this definition, the substance of which was first introduced in Planning Policy Guidance note 3 in 2000, and is based on land use change statistics categories of brownfield land which have been the same since 1985.
	Local authorities have always had the ability to turn down applications for inappropriate housing development in back gardens. PPS3, which came into force in April 2007, has strengthened that ability further. In particular, local authorities have now been given the ability to put in place local policies that specifically protect gardens and to separate gardens out from their wider brownfield development targets. The policy also makes clear that there is no presumption that land is suitable for housing simply because it is brownfield, stressing the need for sites to be suitable for housing development, and in suitable locations that will contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.

Home Information Packs

Eric Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment she has made of the impact stand alone home condition report without home information packs had on transactions in the home information pack area trials.

Caroline Flint: There were no stand-alone home condition reports as part of the area trials.

Housing Associations: Disabled

Jamie Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 
	(1)  what statutory obligations housing associations have to accommodate the needs of disabled tenants;
	(2)  what statutory obligations housing associations have to improve their housing stock for disabled tenants;
	(3)  what statutory obligations housing associations have to  (a) rehouse disabled tenants and  (b) prioritise their needs on local housing waiting lists.

Iain Wright: Housing associations (RSLs) are independent not-for-profit organisations responsible for their own lettings policy, governance and management of stock. However, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it is unlawful for service providers (including housing associations) to treat someone less favourably because of their disability, and they must make 'reasonable adjustments' for them, such as giving that person extra help or changing the way they provide their services.
	Further, the Housing Corporation, which invests in and regulates RSLs, also has statutory duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Through its regulatory code, it requires that RSLs operate according to the law, their constitutions and regulatory requirements. The code requires that they demonstrate when carrying out all their functions commitment to equal opportunities, work towards the elimination of discrimination, demonstrate an equitable approach to rights of all individuals, and be responsive to the individual circumstances of residents. RSLs should have an equalities and diversity policy.
	The regulatory code requires that RSLs have lettings and sales policies which are flexible, non-discriminatory, responsive to demand, and which contribute to the need to be inclusive and ensure sustainable communities. Section 170 of the 1996 Housing Act requires that RSLs co-operate with local housing authorities to enable the latter to fulfil their duties to the homeless, the vulnerable, people in priority housing need and to those covered by the Government's Supporting People policy. Where a local authority so requests, and to such an extent as is reasonable in the circumstances, RSLs must co-operate in offering accommodation to people with priority on the authority's housing register. In addition, section 106(2) of the Housing Act 1985 requires that RSLs maintain a set of rules determining priority between applicants in allocating housing accommodation and the rules governing the procedure.

Land Use: Agriculture

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether the Government plans to review Planning Policy Statement 7 (2004) on developments on agricultural land; and if she will make a statement.

Iain Wright: We have no plans to revise policy in planning policy statement 7 (2004) on developments on agricultural land.

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation: Euro RSCG Apex Communications

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what payments the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation made to Euro RSCG Apex Communications in each of the last five years; on what dates; and for what purpose in each case.

Caroline Flint: The London Thames Gateway Development Corporation has employed Euro RSCG Apex Communications to provide general public affairs advice on a range of issues. They have made payments in 2006-07 of £26,261 and 2007-08 of £14,834.

National Interest Mapping Service Agreement

Eric Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what changes in  (a) service and  (b) data provision Ordnance Survey has made to the Mapping for Emergencies Service since the ending of the National Interest Mapping Services Agreement; and how many staff were employed by the service (i) before and (ii) after the period covered by that agreement.

Iain Wright: Since the ending of the National Interest Mapping Services Agreement (NIMSA) no fundamental changes have been made by Ordnance Survey to the Mapping for Emergencies service, though at an operational level Ordnance Survey has extended the arrangements with a number of its partners to ensure timely local supplies of information when appropriate, as well as improving processes, contact arrangements and raising awareness of the service among civil contingency response agencies.
	No changes have been made to data provision under the Mapping for Emergencies Service. Authorities responding to emergencies continue to be able to request data and mapping from Ordnance Survey's full range of products and services, as may be appropriate to the specific needs of the incident.
	When a Mapping for Emergencies service request is received, staff are temporarily deployed from other duties according to their specialism, to meet the particular requirements of the incident.
	Information on staff deployment to the Mapping for Emergencies service prior to 1 April 1999, when NIMSA was established, is not readily available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In the period since NIMSA ended on 31 December 2006, a total of 12 different staff were deployed in response to two requests between 1 January and 31 March 2007. 23 different staff were deployed across eight incidents during financial year 2007-2008.

Planning Permission: Prosecutions

Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many prosecutions have been brought under building control regulations against people who have opened up access through the party wall of adjoining terraced properties without permission since 2001.

Iain Wright: None. These are two separate pieces of legislation.
	The Building Regulations set out a series of performance standards which building work should achieve and the process for ensuring compliance with those requirements. They are enforced by the relevant building control body.
	The Party Wall etc Act provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes in relation to party walls, boundary walls and excavations near neighbouring buildings. Responsibility for ensuring compliance rests with the building owner who wishes to carry out the work. Failure to follow the procedures laid down in the Act is a civil matter for the relevant parties.

Regional Planning and Development

Eric Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough of 3 April 2008,  Official Report, column 1275W, on regional planning and development, in which local authorities have Development Plan documents have been  (a) amended by the planning inspector and  (b) rejected by the planning inspector as unsound.

Iain Wright: The planning inspector does not 'amend' development plan documents. The purpose of the independent examination is to consider if the development plan document is sound. An inspector may find the document sound; he may recommend that it is changed in order to become sound; or he may find it unsound and recommend that it is withdrawn. A local authority may only adopt a plan in accordance with the inspector's recommendations; but it also may choose not to adopt a plan.
	Development plan documents for the following local authorities have been found sound by inspectors subject to inspectors' recommendations for changes.
	Bedford
	Broads Authority
	Chelmsford
	South Cambridgeshire
	Southend on Sea
	Havering
	Kingston on Thames
	Redbridge
	Alnwick
	Blyth Valley
	Middlesbrough
	Newcastle upon Tyne
	Redcar and Cleveland
	South Tyneside
	Tynedale
	Bracknell Forest
	Crawley
	Epsom and Ewell
	Hampshire
	Horsham
	Maidstone
	Mid Sussex
	Milton Keynes
	Portsmouth
	Reading
	Surrey
	Tonbridge and Malling
	Carrick
	Dartmoor
	Mid Devon
	Plymouth
	South Hams
	Staffordshire
	Telford and Wrekin
	Worcester
	Hambleton
	Development plan documents for the following local authorities have been found unsound by inspectors.
	Windsor and Maidenhead
	Carrick
	Teignbridge
	Lichfield
	Stafford
	Worcester
	Ryedale
	Restormel
	Chichester

Social Rented Housing: Private Finance Initiative

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the statement of 25 February 2008,  Official Report, column 66-67WS, on the national strategy for housing in an ageing society: disabled facilities grant (funding), whether socially rented housing built under private finance initiative arrangements will be  (a) classed as publicly-funded housing and  (b) required to be built to Lifetime Home Standards from 2011.

Iain Wright: holding answer 27 March 2008
	Social rented housing built under a PFI contract is constructed using private sector capital investment but the cost is underpinned by contractual payments to the private sector from the local authority revenue budget which are partly supported by central Government grant. On this basis PFI would count as publicly funded.
	We intend that social rented homes built under PFI from 2011 are built to Lifetime Homes Standards.

Valuation Office: ICT

Eric Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what information from local authority  (a) planning and  (b) building control departments is passed to the Valuation Office Agency via the Valuebill interface.

John Healey: No information from either planning or building control departments is passed directly to the Valuation Office Agency via the Valuebill interface.
	Billing authority revenues departments send electronic billing authority reports (e- BARs) to the Valuation Office Agency via electronic interfaces developed through Valuebill. Some of these e-BARs are instigated as a result of information received by the revenues department from the planning or building control departments.

Disabled

Angus MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets her Department has set in relation to its employment of people with disabilities over the next five years.

Liam Byrne: The current Cabinet Office target, as set out in '10 Point Plan on creating a diverse civil service' (commonly referred to as the 10 Point Plan), for the employment of staff declaring a disability is 3.2 per cent. by April 2008.
	The department is awaiting the publication of the successor to the 10 Point Plan, which is currently being developed and due for publication later this summer.

Firearms: Crime

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 29 November 2007,  Official Report, columns 657-58W, on firearms: crime, how many  (a) gun crimes and  (b) arrests relating to gun crime there were (i) in England and Wales and (ii) in each police force area in each year since 2005-06.

Vernon Coaker: Available data relate to offences involving firearms (excluding air weapons) recorded during 2005-06 and 2006-07 and are given in the following table. Firearms are taken to be involved in a crime if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument or used as a threat.
	The arrests collection undertaken by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform provides data on persons arrested for recorded crime (notifiable offences) by main offence group, i.e. violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary etc. More detailed data about specific offences are not collected.
	
		
			  Crimes recorded by the police in which firearms (excluding air weapons) were to have been used( 1) , by police force area: England and Wales 2005-06 and 2006-07 
			  Recorded crime 
			  Police force area  2005-06  2006-07 
			  North East region   
			 Cleveland 41 19 
			 Durham 18 14 
			 Northumbria 137 111 
			
			  North West region   
			 Cheshire 71 41 
			 Cumbria 18 21 
			 Greater Manchester 1,200 993 
			 Lancashire 372 364 
			 Merseyside 485 410 
			
			  Yorkshire and the Humber region   
			 Humberside 108 117 
			 North Yorkshire 15 14 
			 South Yorkshire 301 211 
			 West Yorkshire 355 319 
			
			  East Midlands region   
			 Derbyshire 109 83 
			 Leicestershire 89 109 
			 Lincolnshire 72 45 
			 Northamptonshire 128 159 
			 Nottinghamshire 277 196 
			
			  West Midlands region   
			 Staffordshire 128 94 
			 Warwickshire 80 90 
			 West Mercia 115 63 
			 West Midlands 946 979 
			
			  East of England region   
			 Bedfordshire 103 86 
			 Cambridgeshire 34 24 
			 Essex 280 255 
			 Hertfordshire 114 89 
			 Norfolk 29 34 
			 Suffolk 58 42 
			
			 London region 3,884 3,331 
			
			  South East region   
			 Hampshire 85 122 
			 Kent 142 92 
			 Surrey 87 60 
			 Sussex 85 84 
			 Thames Valley 401 332 
			
			  South West region   
			 Avon and Somerset 167 138 
			 Devon and Cornwall 174 132 
			 Dorset 27 28 
			 Gloucestershire 77 65 
			 Wiltshire 43 69 
			
			  Wales   
			 Dyfed Powys 21 17 
			 Gwent 53 33 
			 North Wales 88 98 
			 South Wales 71 67 
			
			 England and Wales 11,088 9,650 
			
			 England and Wales (excluding London region) 7,204 6,319 
			 (1) Firearms are taken to be involved in a crime if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used as a threat.  Note: Data for 2007-08 are scheduled to be published in January 2009.

Illegal Immigrants

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much each police force  (a) requested in recharge payments and  (b) received in recharge payments from the Immigration Service where immigration officers authorised the detention of a suspected illegal immigrant, in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

Liam Byrne: The information is as follows:
	 (a) Details of recharge payments made to individual police forces are in the table.
	 (b) The information requested of recharge payments where immigration officers have authorised the detention of a suspected illegal immigrant could be obtained by the detailed examination of individual case records and only at disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Police expenditure 
			  Police authority  2005-06  2006-07  2007-08 
			 Avon and Somerset authority 160 62 51 
			 Bedfordshire Police 22 10 10 
			 British Transport 12 10 0 
			 Cambridgeshire Police 101 134 117 
			 Central Scotland Police 0 0 8 
			 Cheshire Police 104 61 8 
			 Cleveland Police 94 39 39 
			 Cumbria Police 1 5 1 
			 Derbyshire Police 0 15 1 
			 Devon and Cornwall Constabulary 136 203 147 
			 Dorset Police 95 152 147 
			 Dumfries and Galloway Council 6 100 67 
			 Durham Constabulary 23 0 0 
			 Dyfed Powys Police 43 50 48 
			 Essex Police Authority 96 86 34 
			 Fife Council 0 0 2 
			 Gloucestershire Police 30 12 7 
			 Grampian Joint Police 13 12 11 
			 Greater Manchester Police 187 216 206 
			 Gwent Police Authority 55 42 25 
			 Hampshire Constabulary 199 282 598 
			 Hertfordshire Police 47 10 9 
			 Humberside Police 63 35 53 
			 Kent Police Authority 614 379 322 
			 Lancashire Police 55 8 7 
			 Leicestershire Police 43 29 2 
			 Lincolnshire Police 92 193 71 
			 Lothian and Borders 0 9 84 
			 Merseyside Police 162 227 104 
			 Metropolitan Police 2,997 2,886 3,665 
			 Norfolk Police 6 2 1 
			 North Wales Police 254 272 285 
			 North Yorkshire Police 6 7 20 
			 Northamptonshire Police 316 134 116 
			 Northern Ireland Police 15 109 254 
			 Northumbria Police 48 66 151 
			 Nottinghamshire Police 18 72 62 
			 Port of Tilbury 0 2 0 
			 South Wales Police 252 133 152 
			 South Yorkshire Police 44 56 91 
			 Staffordshire Police 76 68 64 
			 Strathclyde Police 0 6 88 
			 Suffolk Police 1 0 1 
			 Surrey Police 138 66 95 
			 Sussex Police 442 224 173 
			 Tayside Joint Police 0 0 17 
			 Thames Valley Police 193 118 93 
			 The Highland Council 5 1 2 
			 Warwickshire Police 13 12 17 
			 West Mercia Police 10 22 13 
			 West Midlands Police 124 90 105 
			 West Yorkshire Police 234 228 217 
			 Wiltshire Constabulary 82 30 31 
			 Total 7,728 6,884 7,892

Press

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of the press offices of  (a) her Department,  (b) its agencies and  (c) its non-departmental public bodies was in each year since 1996-97; what the cost was in each quarter since 1 April 2007; and if she will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: Media relations for the whole Department and agencies are handled by the Home Office, Communication Directorate based Press Office and in addition since May 2007 the Borders Agency regional network of five Press officers.
	The following table provides the total cost of providing these services each financial year from 1998-99 to 2006-07; total cost figures for 2007-08 are not yet available. Cost data for earlier years and for non-departmental public bodies, is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Financial year  Total cost (£) 
			 1998-99 1,095,000 
			 1999-2000 1,213,200 
			 2000-01 2,184,200 
			 2001-02 1,972,600 
			 2002-03 3,109,449 
			 2003-04 2,959,966 
			 2004-05 2,777,578 
			 2005-06 3,351,648 
			 2006-07 3,238,534

Cogent Sector Skills Council

Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills what steps the Cogent Sector Skills Council is taking to ensure that there is an adequate supply of people with the skills needed for the nuclear waste industries.

David Lammy: Cogent sector skills council (SSC) works with employers to ensure that the nuclear industry's skill requirements are met.
	Cogent has a sector skills agreement (SSA) with the nuclear industry, Government, trade unions and other stakeholders. This identifies the skills needs of the sector and the recruitment, training and education solutions needed to address skills gaps. One important solution is the launch of the National Skills Academy for Nuclear (NSAN). NSAN is a subsidiary company of Cogent and, responding to employer demand in the sector, its focus is UK-wide with responsibilities for assuring training provision to agreed standards.
	To address the specific skill needs of the nuclear waste industry, Cogent is working closely with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the National Skills Academy for Nuclear and employers. The initiatives include a web-based career pathways service and development of apprenticeship/modern apprenticeship frameworks, a nuclear industry training framework and national occupational standards along with the associated Scottish/national vocational qualifications, and foundation degrees. The career pathways scope the skills to deal with current nuclear waste volumes and the requirements of a future national nuclear waste repository.
	Through the Alliance of SSCs, Cogent works with related SSCs as well as with other skills bodies, such as the Engineering Construction Industry Trade Board, to ensure the full range of skills required to deal with nuclear waste are available.

United Kingdom Accreditation Service: Grayling Political Strategy

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills what payments  (a) the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and  (b) UFi made to Grayling Political Strategy in each of the last five years; and on what date and for what purpose the payment was made in each case.

David Lammy: The United Kingdom Accreditation Service is a private company and I do not have detailed information about their payments to Grayling Political Strategy. However, I understand they pay them approximately £12,000 per annum for general political monitoring services. The payments made by Ufi at this level of detail are not collected by my Department. This is an operational matter for Ufi since they determine any payments to local providers, partners and other organisations that are necessary to support the delivery of the Ufi's key priorities and targets. Sarah Jones, Ufi's chief executive, will write to the hon. Member with further information. A copy of her reply will be placed in the House Library.

Headteachers

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the average age of  (a) primary school and  (b) secondary school headteachers was in each year since 1997.

Jim Knight: The following table provides the average age of full-time head teachers employed in local authority maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools in England, March 1997 to 2006.
	
		
			  The average age of full-time head teachers employed in local authority maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools in England, March 1997 to 2006. 
			   Nursery/Primary  Secondary 
			  March   
			 1997 48 49 
			 1998 48 49 
			 1999 48 50 
			 2000 49 50 
			 2001 49 50 
			 2002 49 50 
			 2003 50 51 
			 2004 50 50 
			 2005 50 51 
			 2006 50 51 
			  Source: Database of Teacher Records

Music: Education

Jeremy Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families 
	(1)  what steps his Department has taken to build on the Wider Opportunities programme;
	(2)  how many pilot schemes were set up as part of the Wider Opportunities programme; how long the pilots lasted; and how many pilots are in operation;
	(3)  what funding his Department provided for the Wider Opportunities music programme in each year since 2003;
	(4)  what the status of the Wider Opportunities music programme is; and what plans there are for extending it beyond its pilot areas.

Jim Knight: There were 13 Wider Opportunity pilot authorities: Barking and Dagenham, Croydon, Devon, Haringey, Hertfordshire, Kirklees, Manchester, Newham, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Portsmouth and Staffordshire. All of the pilot authorities have learnt from their experience and are continuing to address the objectives of giving as many pupils as possible access to free instrumental tuition during key stage 2 care, which Ofsted(1) recommended should last for at least one year.
	In 2003-04 each local authority received an additional £10,000 in its Standards Fund allocation for music specifically to support activities linked to wider opportunities at key stage 2. These additional payments of £10,000 were also made in 2005-06 and 2006-07. In 2006-07 a further £3 million was allocated nationally to support wider opportunities work, with £23 million allocated for this purpose in 2007-08. These allocations were shared on a formula based on the number of key stage 2 pupils with a weighting for social disadvantage. For 2008 to 2011 the Standards Fund Music Grant still includes a formula based sum (£23 million a year) to enhance access to instrumental and vocal opportunities at key stage 2.
	Since 2006 "Wider Opportunities" has come to be used to describe not a single model but rather a number of models which deliver instrumental and vocal tuition across whole class and year groups. Guidance for schools on instrumental and vocal tuition at key stage 2 was produced in March 2006 and updated(2) in September 2007.
	We continue to support the objectives of widening musical opportunities for children and young people, and announced a record £332 million investment for music in schools on 21 November 2007. Our aspiration, as set out in the Standards Fund guidance sent to directors of Children Services in December 2007, is that by 2011 programmes will be in place that will result in every child having the opportunity to learn a musical instrument for free, normally in a large group or whole class setting, for at least one year.
	(1) "Tuning in: wider opportunities in specialist instrumental tuition for pupils in key stage 2" March 2004.
	(2 )Available on teachernet: http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&Productld=DFES-0184-2006&

Primary Education: Standards

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what his most recent estimate is of the proportion of children who completed Key Stage 2 with adequate levels of literacy and numeracy; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Knight: Levels of literacy and numeracy in primary school leavers are most commonly measured by the proportions of children gaining National Curriculum level 4 and above in English and mathematics, since these represent the expected national standard. Children who reach Level 3 of the National Curriculum are assessed as having effective skills in English and mathematics and can demonstrate a good standard of reading and mental addition and subtraction. They are able to read a range of texts accurately independently, tackle unfamiliar words, discuss their mathematical work and begin to explain their thinking. Children achieving Level 4 have access to more complex forms of language and more complex ideas. They develop their own strategies for solving problems and are using these strategies both in working within mathematics and in applying mathematics to practical contexts.
	Achievement of the target Level 4 provides children with a solid foundation in learning from which to access the full secondary curriculum—79 per cent. of pupils who achieved Level 4 (in a combination of English, Mathematics and Science) at Key Stage 2 in 2002 went on to get five or more good GCSEs in 2007.
	The Department's new Public Service Agreements published as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2007 have a dual focus on ensuring that pupils reach the levels expected for their age in both English and mathematics (threshold targets) and improving the rates of progress made by pupils from ages 5-16 (new progression targets) with increased attention to achieving faster progress for underachieving groups such as children in care and minority ethnic pupils. The progression targets will be a major factor in helping all pupils—regardless of their background and circumstances—to realise their potential in English and mathematics in particular.
	Information on the attainment of pupils in Key Stage 2 English and mathematics tests since 1994-1995 is shown in the following table:
	
		
			  Pupil attainment in Key Stage 2 English tests: 
			   Percentage of pupils at each level 
			   A  T/D  B  N  W( 1)  1( 1)  2  3  4  5  6( 1)  Total  % at Level 3 or above  % at Level 4 or above 
			 1995 4 0 — 0 0 1 7 39 41 7 0 100 88 49 
			 1996 3 0 — 2 0 1 6 30 45 12 0 100 87 57 
			 1997 3 0 4 2 — — 1 26 48 16 0 100 89 63 
			 1998 2 0 4 2 — — 1 26 48 17 0 100 91 65 
			 1999 2 0 3 2 — — 1 20 48 22 0 100 91 71 
			 2000 2 0 3 2 — — 1 17 46 29 0 100 92 75 
			 2001 1 1 3 2 — — 1 17 46 29 0 100 92 75 
			 2002 1 1 3 2 — — 1 17 46 29 0 100 92 75 
			 2003 1 1 3 2 — — 1 16 48 27 — 100 91 75 
			 2004 1 0 4 2 — — 1 14 50 27 — 100 92 78 
			 2005 1 0 4 2 — — 1 14 52 27 — 100 93 79 
			 2006 1 0 4 1 — — 1 14 47 32 — 100 93 79 
			 2007 1 0 4 1 1 — 1 13 47 34 — 100 93 80 
		
	
	
		
			  Pupil attainment in Key Stage 2 Mathematics tests: 
			   Percentage of pupils at each level 
			   A  T/D  B  N  W( 1)  1( 1)  2  3  4  5  6( 1)  Total  % at Level 3 or above  % at Level 4 or above 
			 1995 4 0  5 0 1 7 37 31 12 0 100 82 45 
			 1996 3 0  2 0 1 5 34 40 1 0 100 88 54 
			 1997 3 0 3 2 — — 2 28 44 18 0 100 90 62 
			 1998 2 0 3 3 — — 1 31 42 17 0 100 90 59 
			 1999 2 0 3 2 — — 1 23 45 24 0 100 92 69 
			 2000 2 0 3 2 — — 1 21 47 24 0 100 93 72 
			 2001 1 0 2 2 — — 1 22 45 25 0 100 93 71 
			 2002 1 1 2 2 — — 1 20 46 27 0 100 93 73 
			 2003 1 1 3 2 — — 1 19 44 29 — 100 92 73 
			 2004 1 0 3 2 — — 1 19 43 31 — 100 93 74 
			 2005 1 0 3 2 — — 1 18 44 31 — 100 93 75 
			 2006 1 0 3 2 — — 1 17 43 33 — 100 93 76 
			 2007 1 0 3 2 — — 1 16 45 32 — 100 93 77 
			 (1) Levels Wand 1 were valid in 1995 and 1996 only. Level 6 was valid from 1995 - 2002 only. A represents pupils who were absent. T represents pupils working at the level of the assessment but unable to access the test. D represents pupils disapplied from teacher assessment. B represents pupils who were assessed by teacher assessment only. N represents pupils who took the tests but failed to register a Level. W represents pupils who are "working towards" Level 1 but have not yet achieved the standards needed for Level 1.   Note:  Data covers all schools entering pupils for KS2 tests.

Pupils: Per Capita Costs

Mark Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families 
	(1)  what the average expenditure from the public purse was per pupil on  (a) primary,  (b) secondary and  (c) pre-school education in each parliamentary constituency in the North West in each year since 1997;
	(2)  what the average public expenditure per pupil on education was in each parliamentary constituency in the North West in each year since 1997.

Jim Knight: The available information is contained within the tables. There are two breaks in the time series because of changes to data collection: 1999-2000 saw a change in data source when the data collection moved from the RO1 form collected by the CLG (formally ODPM) to the section 52 form from the DCSF (formally DFES). 2002-03 saw a further break in the time series following the introduction of Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) to schools and the associated restructuring of the outturn tables. The change in sources is shown by the blank columns. Local government reorganisation (LGR) took place during the mid to late 1990's and those LAs that did not exist either pre or post LGR are shaded out for those years.
	
		
			  (a) Pre-primary and primary school based expenditure per pupil for 1997-98 to 2006-07 
			  £ 
			   School based expenditure per pupil in local authority maintained pre-primary and primary schools 
			  Local authority name  1997-98  1998-99   1999-2000  2000-01  2001-02   2002-03  2003-04  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07 
			  North West and Merseyside LAs 
			 Blackburn and Darwen — 1,840  2,120 2,410 2,750  — — — — — 
			 Blackpool — 1,690  1,890 2,210 2,450  — — — — — 
			 Bolton 1,750 2,000  2,030 2,290 2,560  — — — — — 
			 Bury 1,490 1,640  1,800 2,040 2,220  — — — — — 
			 Cheshire — 1,770  1,790 1,900 2,100  — — — — — 
			 Cumbria 1,860 1,880  2,070 2,270 2,550  — — — — — 
			 Halton — 1,870  2,090 2,130 2,630  — — — — — 
			 Knowsley 1,700 1,870  2,120 2,350 2,580  — — — — — 
			 Lancashire — 1,820  1,980 2,220 2,530  — — — — — 
			 Liverpool 1,660 1,840  1,980 2,580 2,860  — — — — — 
			 Manchester 1,620 1,740  1,950 2,280 2,680  — — — — — 
			 Oldham 1,650 1,820  2,100 2,190 2,630  — — — — — 
			 Pre LGR Cheshire 1,710 —  — — —  — — — — — 
			 Pre LGR Lancashire 1,670 —  — — —  — — — — — 
			 Rochdale 1,680 1,770  1,960 2,270 2,570  — — — — — 
			 Salford 1,560 1,630  2,010 2,380 2,630  — — — — — 
			 Sefton 1,590 1,670  1,850 2,080 2,290  — — — — — 
			 St. Helens 1,600 1,700  2,030 2,240 2,470  — — — — — 
			 Stockport 1,570 1,750  1,890 2,230 2,410  — — — — — 
			 Tameside 1,590 1,720  1,650 2,010 2,500  — — — — — 
			 Trafford 1,580 1,710  1,840 2,220 2,400  — — — — — 
			 Warrington — 1,740  1,900 1,990 2,250  — — — — — 
			 Wigan 1,520 1,610  1,920 2,340 2,500  — — — — — 
			 Wirral 1,600 1,810  1,840 2,060 2,450  — — — — — 
		
	
	
		
			  (b) Primary school based expenditure per pupil for 1999- 20 00 to 2006-07 
			  £ 
			   School based expenditure per pupil in local authority maintained primary schools 
			  Local authority name  1997-98  1998-99   1999- 20 00  2000-01  2001-02   2002-03  2003-04  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07 
			  North West and Merseyside LAs 
			 Blackburn and Darwen — —  2,000 2,260 2,560  2,540 2,730 2,910 3,170 3,360 
			 Blackpool — —  1,870 2,200 2,390  2,370 2,660 2,880 3,130 3,340 
			 Bolton — —  2,000 2,260 2,500  2,410 2,620 2,760 3,010 3,200 
			 Bury — —  1,780 2,010 2,180  2,220 2,460 2,660 2,850 3,000 
			 Cheshire — —  1,780 1,880 2,060  2,340 2,540 2,640 2,880 3,190 
			 Cumbria — —  2,050 2,240 2,550  2,560 2,740 2,870 3,180 3,360 
			 Halton — —  2,030 2,110 2,560  2,580 2,740 2,910 3,260 3,430 
			 Knowsley — —  2,120 2,300 2,510  2,620 2,850 3,010 3,230 3,330 
			 Lancashire — —  1,950 2,160 2,450  2,520 2,780 2,900 3,160 3,300 
			 Liverpool — —  1,970 2,540 2,770  2,720 2,970 3,100 3,260 3,610 
			 Manchester — —  1,920 2,250 2,650  2,740 2,930 3,030 3,220 3,420 
			 Oldham — —  2,040 2,090 2,500  2,430 2,600 2,740 2,930 3,220 
			 Pre LGR Cheshire — —  — — —  — — — — — 
			 Pre LGR Lancashire — —  — — —  — — — — — 
			 Rochdale — —  1,900 2,100 2,420  2,370 2,760 2,910 3,190 3,450 
			 Salford — —  1,990 2,300 2,560  2,480 2,830 2,920 3,110 3,350 
			 Sefton — —  1,840 2,050 2,240  2,530 2,830 2,980 3,130 3,330 
			 St. Helens — —  2,000 2,190 2,410  2,500 2,590 2,790 2,990 3,220 
			 Stockport — —  1,860 2,180 2,370  2,260 2,460 2,720 2,900 3,130 
			 Tameside — —  1,640 1,970 2,420  2,480 2,610 2,750 2,930 3,160 
			 Trafford — —  1,830 2,190 2,360  2,250 2,390 2,500 2,650 2,850 
			 Warrington — —  1,880 1,980 2,220  2,270 2,510 2,630 2,830 3,000 
			 Wigan — —  1,900 2,330 2,480  2,400 2,620 2,780 3,030 3,250 
			 Wirral — —  1,810 2,030 2,400  2,520 2,640 2,730 2,960 3,190 
		
	
	
		
			  (c) Secondary school based expenditure per pupil for 1997-98 to 2006-07 
			  £ 
			   School based expenditure per pupil in local authority maintained secondary schools 
			  Local authority name  1997-98  1998-99   1999-2000  2000-01  2001-02   2002-03  2003-04  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07 
			  North West and Merseyside LAs 
			 Blackburn and Darwen — 2,470  2,750 2,960 3,260  3,300 3,710 4,070 4,360 4,680 
			 Blackpool — 2,260  2,420 2,750 3,030  2,880 3,370 3,690 4,010 4,130 
			 Bolton 2,330 2,480  2,630 2,840 3,140  3,010 3,440 3,660 3,950 4,410 
			 Bury 2,160 2,330  2,500 2,650 2,810  2,900 3,240 3,540 3,840 4,040 
			 Cheshire — 2,360  2,490 2,450 2,890  2,990 3,280 3,460 3,760 4,060 
			 Cumbria 2,500 2,570  2,600 2,800 3,300  3,290 3,540 3,630 4,050 4,180 
			 Halton  2,470  2,650 2,620 3,380  3,440 3,690 4,040 4,590 4,650 
			 Knowsley 2,260 2,650  2,880 3,060 3,190  3,590 3,880 4,100 4,570 4,760 
			 Lancashire — 2,450  2,550 2,740 3,070  3,060 3,360 3,610 3,940 4,150 
			 Liverpool 2,370 2,460  2,610 3,390 3,720  3,630 3,840 3,960 4,180 4,780 
			 Manchester 2,450 2,560  2,800 3,080 3,480  3,770 4,030 4,190 4,390 4,770 
			 Oldham 2,300 2,490  2,650 2,850 3,320  3,380 3,790 4,070 4,300 4,560 
			 Pre LGR Cheshire 2,310 —  — — —  — — — — — 
			 Pre LGR Lancashire 2,400 —  — — —  — — — — — 
			 Rochdale 2,400 2,430  2,560 2,930 3,220  3,230 3,640 3,850 4,140 4,530 
			 Salford 2,330 2,380  2,770 3,150 3,510  3,300 3,730 4,000 4,270 4,560 
			 Sefton 2,360 2,420  2,550 2,800 3,090  3,320 3,720 3,960 4,230 4,440 
			 St. Helens 2,270 2,390  2,680 2,830 3,170  3,340 3,630 4,000 4,200 4,430 
			 Stockport 2,110 2,330  2,460 2,820 3,040  2,890 3,130 3,370 3,790 3,980 
			 Tameside 2,190 2,290  2,300 2,500 2,930  2,930 3,260 3,480 3,740 4,000 
			 Trafford 2,300 2,570  2,620 2,920 3,170  3,130 3,330 3,570 3,810 4,120 
			 Warrington — 2,330  2,490 2,660 2,910  3,030 3,400 3,560 3,840 4,090 
			 Wigan 2,310 2,420  2,600 2,830 3,130  3,130 3,460 3,710 3,960 4,340 
			 Wirral 2,360 2,450  2,550 2,820 3,170  3,290 3,640 3,920 4,130 4,430 
		
	
	
		
			  Combined local authority and school based expenditure per pupil by local authorities in the North West and Merseyside region for  1997-98 to 2006-07 
			  £ 
			   Combined local authority and school based expenditure per pupil 
			  Local authority name  1997-98  1998-99   1999-2000  2000-01  2001-02   2002-03  2003-04  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07 
			  North West and Merseyside LAs 
			 Blackburn and Darwen — 2,910  2,990 3,210 3,520  3,620 3,990 4,240 4,850 5,100 
			 Blackpool — 2,570  2,630 2,760 3,140  3,240 3,750 4,200 4,540 4,660 
			 Bolton 2,500 2,740  2,680 2,900 3,190  3,330 3,750 4,010 4,300 4,600 
			 Bury 2,440 2,550  2,640 2,770 2,980  3,070 3,550 3,790 4,220 4,450 
			 Cheshire — 2,700  2,690 2,830 3,140  3,320 3,580 3,760 4,150 4,480 
			 Cumbria 2,800 2,920  2,700 2,830 3,230  3,430 3,980 4,140 4,350 4,760 
			 Halton — 2,730  2,840 2,730 3,360  3,500 4,180 4,470 4,920 5,020 
			 Knowsley 2,540 2,780  2,910 3,180 3,340  3,620 4,090 4,350 4,660 4,920 
			 Lancashire — 2,830  2,750 2,880 3,210  3,260 3,870 4,030 4,540 4,630 
			 Liverpool 2,660 2,840  2,920 3,400 3,780  3,870 5,070 4,940 5,160 5,440 
			 Manchester 2,810 3,020  3,090 3,360 3,840  3,820 4,570 4,710 4,930 5,410 
			 Oldham 2,480 2,670  2,770 2,950 3,310  3,510 3,900 4,090 4,350 4,540 
			 Pre LGR Cheshire 2,560 —  — — —  — — — — — 
			 Pre LGR Lancashire 2,690 —  — — —  — — — — — 
			 Rochdale 2,580 2,660  2,650 2,930 3,190  3,340 4,040 4,270 4,680 5,010 
			 Salford 2,720 2,820  2,830 3,050 3,370  3,450 4,080 4,360 4,720 5,260 
			 Sefton 2,690 2,770  2,760 2,950 3,270  3,480 3,840 4,080 4,340 4,680 
			 St. Helens 2,570 2,750  2,790 2,990 3,310  2,760 3,880 4,200 4,400 4,610 
			 Stockport 2,430 2,650  2,580 2,830 3,040  3,090 3,430 3,720 4,010 4,290 
			 Tameside 2,400 2,540  2,600 2,850 3,200  3,250 3,630 3,760 4,020 4,370 
			 Trafford 2,490 2,690  2,640 2,900 3,190  3,300 3,610 3,410 3,850 4,360 
			 Warrington — 2,310  2,510 2,700 2,960  3,200 3,450 3,550 3,910 4,110 
			 Wigan 2,480 2,670  2,640 2,840 3,190  3,420 3,760 4,000 4,250 4,530 
			 Wirral 2,590 2,770  2,790 3,010 3,380  3,690 3,930 4,080 4,360 4,720

Departmental Freedom of Information

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost to his Department has been of appealing against freedom of information requests submitted by Nicholas Gilby (EA/2007/71/78/79), including to the Information Tribunal; and how much has been paid to counsel representing his Department.

Meg Munn: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has not lodged any appeals against any decisions made about Freedom of Information requests submitted by Nicholas Gilby. Mr. Gilby did, however, appeal three decisions made by the Information Commissioner in relation to his requests for FCO papers that had previously been transferred to the National Archives, which went before the Information Tribunal in March 2008. The FCO does not hold information on the total costs to the taxpayer of Mr. Gilby's appeals in these cases.

European Union: Festivals and Special Occasions

Liam Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what events his Department has planned to mark Schuman Day on 9th May 2008.

Jim Murphy: As has been the case in previous years, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London has no events planned to mark Europe Day on 9 May. The FCO's network of missions across Europe do participate in Europe Day events in their host countries, respecting local circumstances.

Iran: Human Rights

Si�n James: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent  (a) assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Iran and  (b) discussions he has had with the government of Iran on human rights.

Kim Howells: Iran's overall human rights record is poor. We have a number of concerns about human rights violations in Iran, including the increasing use of the death penalty (and its continued use for juvenile offenders) and the growing restrictions on any form of dissent or organised protest. Human rights defenders, women's rights activists, trade unionists, non-governmental organisation workers and students continue to face pressure including intimidation, questioning, arrests and sentences on charges of 'acting against national security' or 'propaganda against the system'. Newspapers and magazines are regularly closed down and websites blocked for criticising the government or crossing red lines. Iran's failure to live up to its commitments under the international human rights conventions it has signed up to is particularly disappointing.
	We remain committed to supporting international human rights standards in Iran and regularly raise our concerns with the Iranian authorities. We usually raise human rights issues with the Government of Iran through the EU, in order to maximise impact and emphasise that our concerns are shared across a range of countries. So far this year the EU has raised human rights issues with the Iranian authorities at least seven times in meetings and made public statements on a number of issues including individual death sentences, the treatment of members of the Baha'i faith, detained human rights defenders and students, and the draft Islamic penal code. We also discuss human rights issues bilaterally with Iranian officials. Most recently, on 6 March, I issued a statement calling for the release of two detained trade unionists in Iran, and on 1 April I called in the Iranian ambassador to raise our concerns about articles of the draft penal code that would make apostasy punishable by death.

Military Decorations

Don Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals has ruled that a medal awarded by a foreign government may be accepted but not worn by British veterans in the last 30 years.

Meg Munn: The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) recommended in 2006 that veterans should be allowed to accept but not wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal. Similar exceptions were made for the Kuwait and Saudi Arabian Medals following the first Gulf War. Second World War veterans who served in Greece may receive campaign medals from the Greek government (Greek War Medal and War Star) but permission has not been given to wear the medals. There may be further examples over the last 30 years, but the HD Committee's usual practice is not to recommend acceptance of foreign medals.

Overseas Students: Scholarships

Sally Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the 2006 review of Chevening Scholarships which he has placed in the Library was the same review of scholarship funding to which he referred in his written ministerial statement of 13 March 2008,  Official Report, columns 22-4WS, on Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and fellowships.

Jim Murphy: The 2006 review of Chevening scholarships was the first of several reviews which led to the changes in Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) scholarships announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 13 March. There was an external review of Marshall scholarships completed in February 2007 and a formal internal review of Chevening Fellowships completed in September 2007. In the context of the development of its new strategic framework, the FCO looked again at scholarship and fellowship funding in late 2007.

Overseas Students: Scholarships

Sally Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 13 March 2008,  Official Report, columns 22-4WS, on Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and fellowships, whether he has undertaken separate assessments of the Chevening, Commonwealth and Marshall scholarship programmes.

Jim Murphy: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 13 March, several reviews led to the changes in Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) scholarships. There was a review of Chevening Scholarships in 2006, an external review of Marshall Scholarships completed in February 2007 and a formal internal review of Chevening Fellowships completed in September 2007. In the context of the development of its new strategic framework, the FCO looked again at scholarship and fellowship funding in late 2007.

Overseas Students: Scholarships

Tim Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the written Ministerial statement of 13 March 2008,  Official Report, columns 22-24WS, on Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and fellowships, whether his Statement, that his Department had pursued high numbers of scholars which had sometimes reduced focus on quality, applied to each scholarship and fellowship scheme.

Jim Murphy: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 13 March, we found a number of weaknesses in our scholarship schemes. But those weaknesses did not apply equally to all our schemes. The pursuit of numbers, which sometimes led to a reduced focus on quality, is a point which applied to the selection of some Chevening scholars.

Overseas Students: Scholarships

Sally Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has assessed the steps taken by the  (a) Commonwealth Scholarship,  (b) Chevening Scholarship and  (c) Marshall Scholarship programmes in maintaining contact with alumni.

Jim Murphy: The Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC) maintains good contact with Commonwealth scholarship alumni and we would like to work with the CSC to develop links between Chevening and Commonwealth alumni. The Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission and our US posts maintain good contact with Marshall alumni through the Association of Marshall Scholars in the US. In recent years we have done much to re-establish links with Chevening alumni. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 13 March, we are working hard to improve the ways in which we build links with all scholars right from the start of the selection process.

Simon Mann

Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances the Government has been refused consular access to Simon Mann in Black Beach Prison, Equatorial Guinea; what steps were taken by the Government in response on each occasion; and if he will make a statement.

Kim Howells: holding answer 30 April 2008
	Our consul from the British deputy high commission in Lagos was refused consular access to Simon Mann during his last visit to Equatorial Guinea in March. Since then the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London and our posts in Nigeria, which also cover Equatorial Guinea, have been taking this issue forward with the Equatorial Guinea authorities. Simon Mann's welfare remains our primary concern.